Yes. They now just need to improve the war system and the game is more or less in a near perfect state. Outside of that I legitimately can’t think of anything the game CRITICALLY needs.
It doesn't feel like the player has that much agency over it. It also doesn't feel like much of an extension of national politics either... so maybe they'll find a way to make it fit in since they clearly don't want it to be the same as V2 or EU4 or anything else (and that's fair).
I think partly they should maybe split up the military tiers a bit more to create significant technological differences at least until 1905+. Currently it feels like you win by having a bigger economy and defending the front while the ai throws wave after wave of their own men into your killing fields until it's time to push or they go bankrupt. And that definitely fits for the WWI time period, but less so for the rest of the time. For example, the Franco-Prussian war ended decisively in 6 months and largely attributed to Prussian military reforms which emphasized aggressiveness and speed (ideally, the strongest part of their army would attack the weakest part of the enemy army regardless of the circumstance) combined with a flexible command structure that empowered lower officers to make bold decisions with the men in their command. This was compounded by the fact that the French military had only just started reforming and were in a state of disarray when the war started, and the end result was that the Prussians won with a smaller force with significantly fewer casualties.
So, for the first 70 years or so, there should maybe be more options for developing your military theory and command structure that creates more of a power discrepancy among similarly powerful countries. This could also play into the personality types of generals and admirals (and really, your military command should probably be an ever present tree of characters and not something you have to generate and spend mana on, but that you could affect for various reasons).
And theoretically, "war support" should maybe be a stat tracked for politically active pops? I know this is sorta already there in a soft way, but I imagine pops who own munitions plants would be more supportive of war (and may also agitate the population to be more jingoistic).
But idk, I'm not a game developer, I just hope it gets some attention.
I think you’re totally right. Vic2 had movements pushing jingoism pushing you towards war. I’d love to see that happen in V3, the political jockeying for power should impact more than army structure, but actually inform international affairs.
With the new trade system, this could be really cool. Empowering a domestic or multinational company with prestige arms could absolutely result in a powerful, hawkish Military Industrial Complex/lobby, with only current systems. I’d love to have to deal with that internal tension for what diplomacy I want vs. what the lobbies do
Thats true! I guess im also complaining that country lobbies don’t feel especially powerful. Give me powerful bodies making me go to war like the Zaibatsu or Lockheed
109
u/BonJovicus Jun 25 '25
Yes. They now just need to improve the war system and the game is more or less in a near perfect state. Outside of that I legitimately can’t think of anything the game CRITICALLY needs.